Download DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN INDIA : RETROSPECT AND

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN INDIA : RETROSPECT AND
PROSPECT
Poverty, low per capita income, under-development, unemployment,
prompted the newly established Indian polity to adopt economic planning for the
development of the country. The idea of economic planning can be traced to 1934,
when M. Visvesverayya in his book 'Planned Economy of India', advocated for
planning to increase the national income. It was taken up by the Indian National
Congress in 1938 when it formed the National Planning Committee under the
chairmanship of Jawaharlal Nehru. The Bombay Plan, the People's Plan and
Gandhian Plan, provided further impetus in the direction of economic planning.
After independence, a Planning Commission was set up in March 1950 by a
Cabinet Resolution with the Prime Minister as its ex-officio Chairman to
formulate five year plans for the economic development of the country.
1
First Five Year Plan to Eight Five Year Plan
Since 1950, each plan has marked an important phase in India's
development. The beginning and the end of a five year plan are regarded as vital
dates in the national life. Each plan, being at once an appraisal of the past, a guide
map for action in the future and a reformulation of basic national policies in the
light of experience and evaluation. Each plan is designed to achieve certain major
objectives and provide for a scheme of investment. 2 In the words of Jawarhalal
Nehru, "Planning is a continuous movement towards desired goals...... indeed
perspective planning is the essence of the planning process.... long term planning
does not mean planning in terms of five years only, but planning for fifteen years
and twenty years ahead, keeping in view the broad picture of the social structure. 3
Economic policy is not made by economists or even politicians, but is shaped by
economic and political forces. As these forces shift, so does economic policy. For
India, independence meant transfer of power from an alien to the local political
class. This class had its economic interests but its overriding objective was to
control and maintain hold on the state. Nehru did not mince words about it. In
speech after speech as Prime Minister and Chairman of the Planning Commission,
he said, that the main role of five year plans was to strengthen the nation-state by
giving it a big role in development. At the same time, it was to seize and hold the
commanding heights of the economy. But things are different now. The state is in
retreat everywhere, and power is being transferred from the political class to the
business class. This is happening in India too. Under the garb of liberalisation and
globalisation, power is being transferred to the business class, first to the Indian
business class and through it, to foreign business led by multi-nationals.4
Planning, in our country therefore becomes all the more necessary to
ensure orderly progress'. It provides a framework of time and space that binds
sectors and regions together and relates each year's effort to the succeeding years'.
Planning lies in proposing bold initiatives to boost up the economy. The basic
planning tenets of the eight five year plans so far have been : growth,
modernization, self-reliance and social justice.5
Economic Planning in India : The First Economic landmark after
Independence
In India, planning has been introduced at the executive level and has no
legal basis. K. Santhanam rightly points out, "Planning for purpose of economic
development practically superseded the federal Constitution so far as states were
concerned but this supersession was not legal or constitutional but was by
agreement and consent".6 Since 1950-51, India has been engaged in the world's
largest and most comprehensive experiment in democratic planning. Planning on
such a gigantic scale is obviously more than an economic process. It is total
national effort and commitment, which includes political leaders at all levels, the
administration, and the people of the country, as well as those specifically
entrusted with the task of economic planning and development. 7
Jawaharlal Nehru in his speech before the Economic Planning
Conference in 1950, defines planning as, "Integrating and having an overall view
of the general conditions and then trying to progress all along the line. It is a
deliberate attempt to promote the well being of the country.8 The planning process
was started in India in April 1951 with the launching of the First Five Year Plan. It
was only in December 1952 that the final version of the first plan was ready and
presented to the nation by the Planning Commission, although the plan covered
the period from April 1951 to March 1952. In 1951, we had an economy that had
suffered long from the effects of cramped or shackled development. In 1951 the
country was face to face with four major problems : (a) problem of transition to a
different economic and social order, (b) problem of employment generation, (c)
role of foreign investment in relation to development, (d) problem of securing the
optimum rate of progress.9 On the eve of the First Five Year Plan foodgrains were
being imported on a large scale, and the economy was in the throes of inflationary
pressures. The first plan made maximum allocation to irrigation and power. The
plan's emphasis on agriculture production, rural industries and cooperation meant,
in effect, emphasis on sectors which bore closely on the well-being of large
number of people.10 In 1951, the political leaders were hopeful that the country
would rise in economic planning to the same height as it had done in the area of
freedom movement.11 The plan rised the important questions of policy. It
considered framing of eocnomic and social policies in different fields in a
continuous process. It envisaged a substantial rise in employment and production
and the largest measure of social justice attainable. The first plan laid the
foundations for achieving the socialist pattern of society, based on the values of
freedom and democracy, breft of caste, class and privilege. 12
Five Decades of Planning
Completing fifty years of chequered career, economic planning in India
is now poised for facing the challenges of the new millennium. Among the various
contributions, particular mention may be made of 'planned economy for India'
prepared by M. Visveswarraya, 'Bombay plan' prepared by a group of eminent
industrialists, 'People's plan' prepared by M.N. Roy and the 'Gandhian plan'
prepared by Raman Narayan. In 1950, the Planning Commission came into being
to usher in a new era of planning with the prime objective of assessing the
country's material, capital and human resources and formulating a "plan for their
most effective and balanced utilization". Being highly impressed by the success of
Soviet five year plan during his entourage to Russia in 1927, Nehru was inspired
by the idea of trying this experiment in his own country. It was only after
independence that he could initiate steps in this regard and entrust the task of
evolving a suitable model for the second plan to P.C. Mahalanobis, the then
Statistical Advisor to the Prime Minister of India. 13 He did a splendid job by
evolving a two-sector plan model closely resembling the growth model developed
by Feldman in Soviet Russia. Mahalanobis emphasised the crucial role of large
investment in heavy industries at an early stage of planned economic development
in India. Therefore, the second plan was formulated to provide, interalia,
considerable stimulus to the growth of basic and heavy industries mostly in the
public sector. As the apex planning body, the Planning Commission, though
without executive authority, was designed to wield considerable power as the
advisory panel in formulating and approving the plan proposals and overseeing
their implementation.
It was decided that the Prime Minister should be its chairman who
would be assisted by a whole time deputy chairman of high calibre as the next in
command. The first Prime Minister of free India, Jawaharlal Nehru, became the
first chairman of Planning Commission in 1950. His search for a dynamic
wholetime deputy chairman resulted in the selection of G.L. Mehta, a prominent
public figure who combined academic accomplishment with a brilliant business
career. The successors of Mehta included a galaxy of luminaries such as T.T.
Krishnamachari, Ashok Mehta, D.R. Gadgil, D.T. Lakdawala, N.D. Tiwari, Y.B.
Chavan, Man Mohan Singh, Parnab Mukherjee and K.C. Pant.14
First Five Year Plan (1951-1956)
The First Five Year Plan launched in 1951-52 was a 'ground preparing'
exercise which gave its primary attention to the achievement of economic stability
and elimination of shortage of food and basic resources. The plan aimed at
increasing the rate of investment from 5 per cent to 7 per cent of the national
income.15 When the First Five Year Plan was prepared, the Planning Commission
attempted to present a picture of eocnomic growth over a period of about 25 years
on certain assumption regarding population growth, proportion of increase in
national income which would be available for investment at each stage, and return
of investment. The plan had the following objectives :
(i)
to restore the economy which had run down as a result of the war, to resist
the inflationary pressures that were prevalent, to build up the transport
system and to ease the food and raw materials position.
(ii)
to initiate measures of social justice on a wide scale, to build up a society
envisaged by the Constitution.
(iii)
to build up administrative machinery to cope with the massive programmes
of reconstruction to which the nation is committed. 16
The basic aim was to secure a balanced development in different sectors
of economy, agriculture on scientific lines, cottage and small scale industries,
large scale consumer goods industries and capital good industries. 17 The plan
aimed at raising the standard of living of the people and to open out to them
opportunities for a richer and more varied life.18 The First Five Year Plan placed
emphasis on administrative leadership, integrity, machinery to enquire into cases
of misconduct on the part of persons who hold any office, political or otherwise;
efficiency; staffing arrangements for management of state industrial enterprises
and for dealing with matters of economic policies and administration.
Plan outlay and Allocations of First Five Year Plan
In the draft outline, owing to the greater urgency of the programmes for
agriculture and irrigation, the provision made for the development of industry in
the public sector was insufficient. Village industries, small scale industries and
handicrafts, whose importance for the economy as a whole can scarcely be
exaggerated, have been given greater emphasis in the plan. The Central
Government's plan provides Rs. 15 crores for cottage and small scale industries. In
the field of social services also, the plan has several important programmes. These
include a national malaria control scheme estimated to cost Rs. 10 crores,
increased provision for scheduled tribes and scheduled areas and for scheduled
castes and other backward classes including criminal tribes, a programme for
industrial housing costing Rs. 49 crores. 19 The first plan was a great breakthrough.
The rate of growth of GDP at factor cost was 3.6, of per capita income 1.7, saving
10.28 and of investment 10.66 per cent per annum. 20 The First Five Year Plan was
based on the Harrod-Domer model and laid emphasis on "fiscal policy aimed at
raising domestic saving to the degree required by the projected investment levels
that result from planned income expansion". 21
The objectives were :
-
To increase the agriculture production for the purpose of solving the food
crisis.
-
To reduce inequalities in income.
-
To initiate a new pattern of economy, 'Mixed Economy'. Target of the plan
was 11% increase in national income.
The outbreak of the Korean war in 1950 and an unusually bad crop in
1950-51 had aggravated the situation. In 1951 the country had to import 4.7
millions tons of foodgrains.22
Second Five Year Plan (1956-1961)
At the time of the Second Five Year Plan, however, a major change was
brought about, Indian planners operated on the assumption of a low elasticity of
export demand accompanied by a system of strict import allocation. The Second
Five Year Plan, which was heavily influenced by the work of Mahalanobis,
reflected to a much larger extent the necessity to build ahead of demand in the area
of capital goods production.23 The size of the second plan was a subject to which
much thought was given by the Planning Commission. It was first contemplated
that in the public sector, the outlay might be of the order of Rs. 4,300 crores. The
aggregate size had to be increased to at least Rs. 4,800 crores. The increase was
due to the new emphasis on the development of heavy industries, such as iron,
steel production, railways etc.24 The rapid growth of industries in the country
commenced effectively with the Second Five Year Plan. 25 The net investment in
the second plan was of the order of Rs. 6,100 crores - Rs. 3,800 crores in public
sector and Rs. 2,300 crores in the private sector. 26 At 25 per cent increase in the
national income, rapid industrialization with particular emphasis on development
of basic and heavy industries, large expansion of employment opportunity to 10
million people. The plan laid special stress on fastening industrialization with the
aim of strengthening the capital base and productive capacity. The plan aimed at
increasing the rate of investment from about 7 per cent of the national income to
11 per cent by 1961.27
External assistance for the Second Five Year Plan
In the Second Five Year Plan, we have drawn
from our sterling
balances. These balances declined by Rs. 540 crores over the first three years of
the plan. This excludes a loan of Rs. 95 crores taken from the IMF. We have
received in the second plan grants from these countries like the U.S.A., USSR,
Colombo Plan countries, West Germany, Japan, etc. The World Bank has given
substantial loans for railways, ports and other projects; the Ford Foundation and
Rock Feller Foundation have also extended help. The assistance from the USA
referred to above, includes assistance received under P.L. 480. 28 The Central goal
of the second plan (1956-61) was to attain a socialistic pattern of the society. This
could be possible only if the benefit of economic development accrued more to the
relatively less privileged section of society. 29 The plan sought to rebuild rural
India, to lay the foundations of industrial progress, to secure to the greatest extent
feasible opportunities for the weaker and underprivileged section of our people,
and to achieve to the greatest extent possible the balanced development of all parts
of the country. The plan admitted that all states had the common cause of
eliminating poverty and raising the people's standard of living. 30 The plan adopted
the Marxian (Feldman) model as elaborated and trimmed by Mahalanobis. A
distinction was made between investment for the production of capital goods and
investment for the production of consumer goods. 31
In a nutshell, the second plan achieved a 25 per cent rise in national
income. It emphasized the basic and heavy industries like iron and steel, heavy
fuel and power, chemicals, heavy engineering, machine-building, reduction of
inequality, and a more even distribution of economic power. 32
Third Five Year Plan (1961-1964)
During 1960-61 the per capita income was Rs. 330 crores and GDP was
Rs. 14,500 crore. The third plan sets large objectives and targets which constituted
a minimum which had to be assumed. They were supposed to open the way to a
still more intensive endeavour and a deeper sense of urgency. The objectives
included a 30 per cent increase in national income, a rate of investment capable of
sustaining this rate, a 17 per cent increase in per capita income, self sufficiency in
foodgrains and industrial raw materials, reduction in prevalent inequality and a
more even distribution of economic power. The central aim of the third plan was
not only to make the Indian economy expand rapidly but also to become self-
sufficient and self-generating.33 The third plan model was the same as that in the
second plan except that there was in it a clear recognition of the definite limits to
the fraction of investment that could be allocated to the capital goods sectors in as
much as the physical composition of the investment fund itself determined to a
large extent the type of output that could be secured. 34 The draft outline of the
Third Five Year Plan published in June 1960, keeps in view both our basic social
and economic objectives and perspective of growth over the next 15 years. The
Third plan was being formulated with the following aims. 35
a)
To secure an annual increase in national income of over 5 per cent;
b)
To achieve self sufficiency in foodgrains and to increase agricultural
production to meet the requirements of industry and exports;
c)
To expand basic industries in order to meet the requirements of further
industrialisation;
d)
To utilize to the fullest possible extent the main power resources of the
country and to ensure substantial expansion in employment opportunities. 36
e)
Establish greater equality of opportunity and bring about reduction in
disparities of income and wealth and more equitable dispersal of economic
power. The plan sought to increase the national income by about 30 per cent
from Rs. 14,500 crore in 1960-61 to about Rs. 19,000 crore by 1965-66 (at
1960-61) and per capital income by about 17 per cent from 300 to Rs. 385
during the same period.37
The Fourth Five Year Plan (1969-1974)
The Fourth Plan sought to avoid inflation, improve people's
consumption standard, reduce economic and social disparities, to provide avenues
of employment to all who seek them, and to accelerate the tempo of development
to ensure quicker progress towards self-reliance. The rate was not less than 6 per
cent per annum.38 The finalisation of the fourth plan was delayed on account of the
situation created by the Indo-Pak war in 1965, two successive years of severe
drought, devaluation of currency, general rise in prices. Therefore, three annual
plans were formulated between 1966 and 1969. The average annual rate of growth
envisaged was 5.7 per cent.39 The objective of national planning in India is not
only to raise the per capita income but also to ensure that the benefits are evenly
distributed, that disparities in income and living are not widened but in fact
narrowed, and that the process of economic development does not lead to social
tension endangering the fabric of the democratic society. 40 With its predominant
thrust on the acceleration of economic growth, it tried to reach the target of 5 per
cent growth of national income per annum but could achieve only 3.4 per cent per
annum. In fact, both the third and fourth plan, represented a period of downswing
in the growth rate of national income.41 In the fourth plan the stress was on
agriculture.42 The Government of India introduced a national water supply and
sanitation programme in the social sector way back in 1954. Financial assistance
was also provided in the Fourth Five Year Plan to carry out identification of the
Problem Villages (PVs).43 1965-66 and 1966-67 were years of drought and near
famine. Imports of food grains had to be stepped up during 1966-67. Foreign aid
became uncertain. The rupee was devalued in 1966. The period between 1966 and
1969 was one of plan holiday, since annual plans were substituted in place of the
five year plan, though with the frame work of the draft fourth plan. The period
1976-77 witnessed the introduction of the best available agriculture technology in
the form of HYVs and multiple croping. 44
During the Fourth Plan, the rate of growth of GDP was 5% of population
2.5 and of per capita income 1 (1.1 at 1970-71 price) per cent per annum.45 The
fourth plan (1969-74) aimed at accelerating the tempo of development, reducing
fluctuation in agriculture production and the impact of the uncertainties of foreign
aid, and raising the standard of living of the people through greater equality and
social justice, especially of the less privileged section of society. The fourth plan
decided to continue the fight against poverty and economic and social inequality.
Besides, it sought to ensure stability of the core items of family consumption.46
The fourth plan aimed at generation of employment awareness. The network of
Service Centres in rural areas was supposed to open out opportunities for the
young entrepreneurs.47
An Imminent Horizon : Agriculture Policy
Agricultural development in its comprehensive definition is central to all
strategies for planned socio-economic development of India. Agriculture being a
state subject will continue to receive the fullest attention of the state government
and the centre's role is complementary to the state's efforts to ensure progress in
agriculture and minimise regional imbalance. Agricultural production has
increased several fold in the last four decades, but has brought in its wake uneven
development, in both research and production, across regions and economic
viability of agriculture, including horticulture, livestock. Indian agriculture is
today faced with major challenges which could be summed up as follows. 48
(a) Increasing agriculture production and productivity, to ensure food security
for the rising population.
(b) Developing areas of untapped potential, thereby correcting emerging
imbalance in growth in eastern, hilly, rainfed and drought prone regions.
(c) Meeting challenges of degradation of land and water resources, and the
emerging ecological imbalance, due to increasing climatic pressure on land.
(d) Diminishing options and lower income levels.
(e) Addressing to problems of under employment, unemployment and
malnutrition in rural areas through diversification of agriculture and
promotion of horticulture, fisheries, dairy, livestock, poultry, etc.
(f)
Increasing involvement of Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs) in
agricultural development and village upliftment programmes. 49
Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-1979)
The Fifth Five Year Plan, had two broad aims, reducing poverty and
achieving self-reliance. The plan programmes were designed to rise the level of
consumption of the lowest 30 per cent of the population. It also aimed at meeting
the foreign exchange requirements, other than debt services charges, from the
country's own resources.50 The fifth plan was projected a target rate of growth of
five and a half per cent which is higher than the rate of which the economy has
grown over the fourth plan. Achievement of this objective requires a higher level
of investment apart from higher level of efficiency. Greater emphasis on selfreliance implies that a higher level of saving has to be generated domestically to
correspond to the required level of investment. 51 The fifth plan aimed at
controlling inflation and stablising economic situation. After covering four years
of implementation this plan came to an abrupt halt, and a fresh plan with new
priorities and programmes was launched.
By achieving an annual growth rate of 5.2 per cent the plan started on
confident note towards steady rise in the growth rate. 52 The annual rate of growth
of GDP was 5 and 5.2 at 1970-71 prices and of per cent income 2.7 to 2.9 at
1970-71 per cent.53
Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-85)
Its principal objectives were : (a) significant steep in the rate of growth
of the economy, (b) achievement of economic and technology of self-reliance, (c)
progressive reduction in poverty and unemployment, (d) speedy development of
indigenous sources of energy, (e) minimum needs programme to improve the
quality of life of the people, especially of the economically and socially backward
sections, (f) checking population growth. 54 The sixth plan largely focused on the
eradication of poverty. The strategy was essentially to strengthen the infrastructure
of both agriculture and industry so as to create conditions for a sustained and
accelerated growth in investment output and exports. 55 The major thrust of the
sixth plan included poverty allevation, development of infrastructure and
expansion of investment and employment outlets. By fully achieving the target of
5.2 per cent annual growth rate this plan showed an encouraging prospect of
reaching a higher growth tragectory.56
Understanding Poverty and Unemployment
Poverty and unemployment are the biggest challenges to development
administration in India. The draft five year plan 1978-83 has rightly emphasized
that the principal objective of planning should be defined as achieving within a
period of 10 years; removal of unemployment and significant under-employment;
an appreciable rise in the standard of living of the poorest sections of population;
provision by the state of some of the basic needs of the people in these income
groups, like clean drinking water, adult literacy, elementry education, health care,
etc.57
Much has been written on poverty and its alleviation. There has been a
considerable debate in India since the initiation of economic reforms in July 1991
about their possible impact on the poor. 58 Since independence the proportion of
the population living in poverty has reduced substantially but remains high. Prior
to the mid 1970s the proportion below the poverty line remained fairly static at
about 55% between 1975 and 1987 there was a steady decline to 38% coinciding
with an increase in the economic growth rate 4% to 5% a year and strong rural
growth. Although India has made significant progress in reducing poverty over the
last two decades, the incidence of poverty is still much higher than in most other
regions of the world, except far part of sub-Saharan Africa. Countries in East Asia,
including China, have had considerably success in reducing poverty, despite
having comparable levels of poverty in the 1960s and 1970s (around 605 below
the $1 per day poverty line). The challenges for India will be to emulate the
success of East Asian countries and reduce poverty much further. 59
Impact of Poverty
A.R. Bandyopadhyay devoted considerable attention to the structural
programmes and its impact on poverty. The New Economic Policy emphasised the
need for increasing the productivity in the economy. At the same time, it does not
provide for enough safety for large sections of the rural poor. The New Economic
Policy suggest that the benefit of economic reforms would reach the poor.60 The
Government of India recognized and began attending to the problem of poverty,
both institutional and economic, almost from its inception and that at present there
are in the field a vide variety of specific antipoverty programmes. All of them
have fulfilled their annual targets. They do not make an impact on poverty. One
reason, is that the specific antipoverty programmes are only less than ten years in
the field and that it must take sometime for the results to show. 61 The other and the
more important reason is that the size of these programmes is too small in relation
to the size of the programme they are meant to tackle. In table given below the
outlay on the antipoverty programme is shown during the sixth plan. 62
Table 3.1: Outlay on antipoverty programmes during the sixth plan (198085)
Programmes
Outlay
(Rs. million)
Integrated Rural Development Programme
15,000
National Rural Employment Programme
18,000
Rural landless Employment Guarantee Programme
4,000
Total
37,000 63
The Scenario : 1983
One of the major objectives of planning is to reduce poverty and
unemployment. The draft five year plan (1978-83) has specifically mentioned the
removal of unemployment and significant under-employment within a period of
ten years as one of the primary objectives.64 As already mentioned, in 1978 the
estimated backlog of unemployment was 19.5 millions. During the sixth plan
(1978-83) industrial growth registers an increase of 5 per cent per annum,
employment in the organized sector will increase by 5 million leaving as many as
48 million (53 minus 5) of employment generation in the unorganised sector. 65 In
the pre and post green revolution period, public sector provided jobs to the
graduates coming out from the universities but during eighties and nineties of the
last century the employment scenario in the above sector was grim. 66 However,
cooperative and private sectors provided some relief to the job seekers. 67
Higher incidence of unemployment amongst casual labour
Poverty and unemployment are twins which cannot be separated.
Besides, with the continuing high rate of population growth coupled with limited
availability of additional land, the proportion of landless labourers in the labour
force is bound to grow.68 Since independence, India has secured many notable
social and economic achievements including the near eradication of famine, a
reduction in population growth and magnitude of poverty. But India still remain
one of the most protected economies in the world. 69 But unemployment in India is
at 4.8 per cent which may seem lower as compared to jobless figures in many
developed countries - there is widespread underemployment. Unemployment is
now a serious problem because the economy is not growing fast enough. 70
Seventh Five Year Plan (1985-1990)
The investment programmes and the policy at initiatives for the seventh
and subsequent plans must be related to the goals that the nation has for the year
2000, as it steps into the 21st century. In more concrete terms this means the
elimination of poverty and creating condition of near full employment, the
satisfaction of the basic needs of the people in terms of food, clothing and shelter,
attainment of universal elementary education, and access to health facilities. 71 The
attainment of these goals requires : action to sustain and enhance the momentum
of economic expension and technological development; adoption of effective,
promotional measures to raise the productivity and incomes of the poorer section
of the population, poorer regions and poorer states; and measures for bringing
about a sharp reduction in the rate of population growth.
Plan outlay and Allocations :
In the Indian economy, the growth in the national income has largely
been determined by the trends in agriculture production. 72 The poverty abolition
(Garibi Hatao) objective secured a place of pride in the seventh plan. The plan
indicated that in 1983-84, the percentage of population below poverty line in rural
areas and all India total were lower (40.4, 28.1 and 37.4 per cent respectively) than
what they had been in 1977-78.73 The seventh plan sets a target of 5 per cent per
annum rate of growth and assumed the Incremental Capital Output Ratio (ICOR)
to be around 5:1. During the seventh plan the anti-poverty programmes were
restructured on the basis of the experience gained during the sixth plan. During the
post-green revolution period, 1967-68 to 1987-88, agriculture grew at the rate of
around 2.60 per cent per annum. The compound growth rate of agriculture during
1949-50 to 1987-88 was 2.65 per cent per annum.74 India's Seventh Five Year Plan
covering the period, April 1985-March 1990, aims at achieving an annual growth
rate of 5 per cent. The growth rate of agriculture output is expected to be around 4
per cent and that of industrial production 8.3 per cent. The plan projects a current
account deficit of $ 16.8 billion at 1984-85 prices and exchange rates.75
Eighth Five Year Plan (1992-1997)
The Eighth Five Year Plan aimed at raising the standard of the living of
the people and also opening out to them new opportunities for a richer and more
varied life. The death and birth rates have declined literacy has improved,
educational base widened. The public sector investment of the order envisaged in
the eighth plan requires that the dissavings of the government must come down
sharply. Improve fiscal management, leading to the generation of more saving by
government, is one of the basic promises underlying the financial pattern of public
sector investment in the eighth plan.76 The plan also emphasized evaluation of
plan programme and projects. It points out that "feedback through evaluation
result is an important requirement for assessing the performance, comparing the
intended with the actual operations. 77 During the eighth plan, an area of 28 lakhs
was targetted to be covered with an allocation of Rs. 1100 crores. A new scheme,
"application of remote sensing technology for social survey and land use planning"
was launched during the plan period. 78 Programmes of child survival and safe
motherhood were also launched in collaboration with World Bank and UNICEF. 79
During the plan period the public sector is to become selective in its coverage,
which would be focussing on the strategic, high technology and essential
infrastructure. In a way, it paved way for the New Economic Policy. 80
Ninth Plan (1997-2002)
The Ninth Plan envisaged a growth rate of 7 per cent, but some
unforeseen circumstances created impediments. In 1997-98, the growth rate
plummeted to 5 per cent. Subsequently, more disturbing factors like political
instability, kargil conflict (1999) and oil price hike (2000) inhibited progress so
much so that the achievement of the revised target of 6.5 per cent appeared to be
very doubtful. However, a revival of growth rate which touched the level of 6.4
per cent in 1999-2000 reflected some resilience of the economy. The revised
public investment target of Rs. 270400 crores fixed for the last two years of the
ninth plan (aiming at the growth target of 7 per cent) looks a bit ambitious (vide
mid term appraisal of Ninth Five Year Plan 1997-2002, Planning Commission);
but all the same it may be well within reach by exploiting successfully the yield
potential of taxation, borrowing and IEBR (Internal and Extra Budgetry
Resources).81 The ninth plan aimed at providing telephone on demand, achieving
universal convergences, and ensuring the world standard services, and emerging as
a measure manufacturing base for telecom equipments and their exports. Rural
connectivity had also been an important goal for Ninth Five Year Plan.82 The plan
earmarked 13 per cent of GDP to be invested on telecommunication infrastructure.
In 1989, the Tele-Com Research Centre (TRC) formulated some guidelines for
rural telecom sector with plans to make available a phone line in every village by
1999. With the opening of the economy in 1991 the requirement for
telecommunication services changed rapidly and the plans were redrafted in 1994
under the caption national policy. 83
The Approach Paper on the Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002) :
The Common Minimum Programme (CMP), announced in June 1996,
by the United Front Government at the Centre forms the king-pin of the
development strategy of the ninth plan because it represents a consensus that binds
and cements into a coalition of 13 to 14 political parties which have their
nominees in the government, supported from outside by the Congress party. 84 The
coalition agreed on July 4-5, 1996 to make an all out effort for the provision of the
basic minimum services, such as safe drinking water, primary health services,
public housing assistance to the shelterless families, mid-day meal, connectivity to
all unconnected villages. During the ninth plan, the GDP is stipulated to grow at
an average annual rate of 7 per cent, as compared to 5.9 per cent (at market)
during the eighth plan.85 The Planning Commission is reported to have suggested
earlier a 7 per cent growth scenario on the assumption
(1)
that :
rate of investment would grow from 26.2 per cent to 28.6 per cent of the
GDP.
(2)
The ICOR would come down from 4.24 to 4.08 per cent.
(3)
Domestic saving would grow at the rate of 26 per cent.
(4)
Fiscal deficit would come down to 4 per cent. 86
Highlights of the Tenth Plan approved by the Planning Commission on 5
October 2002
*
Annual 8 per cent GDP growth during 2002-07.
*
Annual FDI flows of US $ 7.5 billion
*
Disinvestment target of Rs. 78,000 crores in 5 years
*
50 millions jobs in five years.
*
Reduction in poverty ratio to 21 per cent from 26 per cent by 2007.
*
Literacy rate to increase to 75 per cent by 2007.
*
Infant mortality rate to be reduced to 45 in 2007.
*
Maternal mortality ratio to be halved to 2 in 2007. 87
Mixed Economy in India
In a mixed economy, the government has a positive role to play in the
field of economic activity. Some industries may be completely state owned, and
some may be jointly owned and managed by the state and private enterprises. In
developing countries with mixed economies, there are many areas of activity in
which both public and private enterprises co-exist and face competition. Gone are
the days of exclusive capitalism and socialism. The market today is dominated by
'Mixed Economy' or the middle of the road, which neither wholly capitalist nor
wholly socialist, on the other hand it is the mixture of two. It accomodates both
public and private sectors. The public sector stands for the socialistic element in
the economy and the private sector for the free enterprises element in it. Most
countries of western Europe have also, in recent years, been moving towards the
mixed economy. This trend has been all the more pronounced in the case of under
developed countries like India.88
Public Sector Policy
The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 gave the public sector a
strategic role in the Indian economy, massive investment to the tune of Rs.
1,13,234 crores have been made for 246 central public sector enterprises by the
end of March 1991. In the past four decades, the public sector has played a
commanding role in the economy.89 The Indian economy has been passing
through liberalization on globalised norms, since July 1991. Now the economic
liberalization has already entered into its second phase of progress in Indian
economy. The economic liberalization aims at improving the sectoral and overall
growth of Indian economy with the help of efficient and effective mobilization of
resources both in domestic and international markets. In the process of economic
liberalization, the private enterprises and public sector undertakings are affected
directly but the cooperative sector is indirectly affected. 90
Coming to the Mixed Economy, it has the advantages of both public and
private sectors and seek to eliminate the evils of both. It recognises; co-existence
of the public and private sectors, role of price system and Government directives,
Government regulation and control of private sector, protection of labour,
reduction of economic inequalities and control of monopoly. In a mixed economy,
pursuing planned economic development, fiscal policy plays a central and
multidimensional role.93
Restructuring of Indian Economy
Industrial Policy Resolution (the 6th April, 1948)
There was well-defined industrial policy before 1947. In Indian
economy, both the public and private sector were in operation. The foundation of
mixed economy in India was laid by the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948
which was slightly modified in 1956.92 The Industrial policy Resolution of April,
1948 was primarily meant for large industries, but it also laid down that 'cottage
and small scale industries have a very crucial and important role in the national
economy. It also suggested that cottage and small scale industries are "particularly
suited for the better utilization of local reosurces and for the achievement of local
self sufficiency in respect of certain types of essential consumer goods like, food,
cloth, agricultural implements etc". The resolution being the first official
announcement of government policy aimed to achieve much without outlining any
broad line of approach except that in certain fields more reliance would be placed
on cottage and small scale industries.93 The Industrial Policy Resolution of (1948)
had a mixed reaction. There were some who welcomed it as a great advance
towards the socialistic pattern of the society. They found in it seeds of increasing
interference by the state to curb the expansion of capitalism in the country. On the
contrary, the leading industrialists attacked the policy as 'one sided' and strongly
biased against private enterprises. Their contention was that private enterprise had
contributed a great deal to the industrial development of the country. 94 The 1948
Industrial Policy Resolution emphasised the need for carefully regulating as well
as inviting foreign capital. In the earlier years of planning foreign capital was
looked upon as a means to supplementing domestic investment. In a formal
pronouncement on April 6, 1949, Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India,
enunciated a (liberalised) policy towards private foreign capital. In short, the
statement on private foreign capital was as follows :
1.
On admission foreign capital would be treated at par with indigenous capital
- it would receive national treatment'.
2.
Facilities would be given for the transmission of profit on foreign capital. 95
3.
Major ownership and control would vest in Indians.
4.
Foreign firms could be acquired only on payment of a fair and equitable
compensation.
5.
On merit, control too could vest in a foreign firm for a limited period.
In brief, the aim of the new policy was a continuous increase in
production and rapid rise in the living standard of the people by increasing
production. These industries were open to the private sector. 96
Industrial Policy Resolution (30 April, 1956)
The IPR of 1956 was adopted on April 30, 1956 replacing the earlier one
aiming at accelerating the rate of industrialisation and economic growth,
development heavy and machine making industries; building up a large and
growing public sector; reducing disparities in income and wealth; and preventing
monopolies and concentration of economic power.
The attainment of these objectives will provide gainful employment, and
improve the standard of living and working conditions of the people. 97 According
to the Policy Resolution, industries have been divided into three categories.There
are 17 industries in first category, which are the exclusive reponsibility of the
govenrment of the state. The establishment of new enterprises in this category is
the responsibility of state, railways, air transport, arms and ammunition and atomic
energy will be developed as state monopolies. In the second category, there are 12
industries which will be progressively state owned. At the same time, private
enterprise will also have the opportunity to develop either on its own or with state
participation. The remaining industries fell under the third category where
development of such industries is left to the initiative and enterprise of the private
sector. But it will be open to the state to start any industry even in this category.98
The Resolution emphasised the significance to the economy of securing a
continuous increase in production and its equitable distribution, and pointed out
that the state must play a progressively active role in the development of
industries. It laid down that besides arms and ammunition, atomic energy of the
Central Government, the state would be exclusively responsible for the
establishment of new undertakings in six basic industries except where, in the
national interest, the state itself found it necessary to secure the co-operation of
private enterprises. Five decades have passed since the declaration on industrial
policy, but very little progress was made in this direction. However, the Industrial
Policy Resolution of 1956 was a definite improvement over that of 1948. Both the
policies laid down increasing responsibility and participation of the Government in
the country's industrialisation.99 While the 1948 Resolution envisaged an
increasingly active role for the public sector, the 1956 policy assumed a direct
responsibility for the future development of industries over a wide area, the 1948
policy established three government monopolies; manufacture of arms and
ammunation, production and control of atomic energy. The 1956 policy was more
clear so far as the private sector was concerned.
In the 1948 Resolution, there was an overall programme to nationalize
private industries falling within the public sector. The 1956 policy promised to
private industries 'as much freedom as was consistent with the target and objective
of the national plan.100 The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 gave the public
sector a strategic role in the Indian economy, massive investments to the tune of
Rs.1,13,234 crore have been made for 246 Central Public Sector Enterprises by
the end of March 1991. In the past four decades the Publisc Sector has played a
decisive role in the economy.101
Second Re-Stracturing of the Indian Economy :
New Economic Policy (1991-92)
The New Economic Policy which was initiated in the country in the
middle of 1991 is an amalgam of several policy statements and measures, relating
to devaluation, industrial policy, commerce and trade policy, banking policy,
budgeting policy, etc. These steps constitute a package deal - devaluation,
liberalisation, deragulation, privatisation, marketisation, globalisaiton, and so
forth.102 In the words of A.R. Bandyopadhyay, the New Economic Policy has
three main components, liberalisation, globalisation and privatisation, aiming at
creating a more competitive environment in the domestic economy.103 The New
Economic Policy opened up new avenues for the establishment and development
of industries. The delicensing and deregulation of industries was a welcome sign.
The new economic policy comprises many policy measures and changes
introduced since July 1991. There is a common thread running through all these
measures.104 The objective is simple and that is to improve the efficiency of the
system. The thrust of the new economic policy is toward creating a more
competitive environment in the economy as a means to improving the productivity
and efficiency of the system. The private sector is being given a larger space to
operate in as some of the areas reserved exclusively for the public sector are also
now allowed to the private sector.105 The policy of liberalization and globalization
provided a holistic angle to the economic structure in the country. In sum, it is a
welcome departure from the previous regulatory regime. 106
The public sector continued to play an important role in the core sector
of the economy upto the end of the seventh plan period. It was as early as in 1975
that liberalisation with respect to industrial policy began. 107 The 1980 industrial
policy conceived of an economic federalism and advocated adoptation of a
pragmatic approach.108 The industrial policy was further liberalised in 1982.
However, some economists fear that political greed may prove the greatest enemy
of the new economic policy. Other economists think that the pace of reforms has
become a hostage to political uncertainty. According to them, the reforms
programme would be successful only if it is politically feasible. 109 Despite the
criticism the NEP did make some radical changes in the field of trade, foreign
investment, exchange rate, industry, fiscal affairs, etc. It succeeded in promoting
liberalisation, privatisation of the public sector, globalisation, and market friendly
state. The thrust of the policy is the freedom for the entrepreneur to enter any
industry/trade/business. The approvals for any new venture including any change
in the existing venture are almost automatic. Licenses are no longer needed to start
a business as has been the case so far. The capital market too have been freed and
opened to the private enterprises seeking capital. A new company can now be
floated with new issue of shares/debentures etc. without seeking the permission of
the Government. In case imported equipment is needed for an industry, the
entrepreneur need not approach the government for foreign exchange or seek
import licence.110
The private enterprises were given a boost out of the 17 industries
reserved for the public sector, 11 have been thrown open to the private sector. 112
One reason for this shift is the dismal performance of the public sector to usher in
dynamism in the economic arena. On the contrary, the state had to incur loses on
account of the public sector, which is evident from the fact that even some of the
public sector undertakings have also been privatised. The NEP seeks to introduce
a blend of domestic economy and world economy. Devaluation of the rupee in
July 1991 was intended to do away with the artificially controlled overvalued
exchange rate of the rupee, and to bring it down to realistic level in terms of the
domestic price level and the world price level. The removal of licensing of a large
number of import items has also liberalised the economy to a large extent. The
role of the state is confined to selected non-market areas, and to ensure smoth
functioning of the market economy and accordingly the five year plans were
adjusted to the new scenario to make the private sector more capable and
resourceful.111 The realisation of the ineffectiveness of the public sector and
promoting economic growth is writ large on the powers that be. Despite best
human resources available to the public sector, its functioning was punctuated by
bureaucratic hurdles, political interference and lack of commitment.
The public sector in India was launched with lot of vigour after
independence to undertake rapid economic development in the country. They
remained major instruments of development for more than four decades, after
which, there was a shift in the policy, when private enterprises were brought into
the field and many public enterprises were replaced. But still, in some of the key
areas, it has a decisive voice .
For instance, there were only 5 PSUs with a total investment of Rs. 29
crores at the commencement of First Five Year Plan (April 1, 1951). Reserve
Bank of India, Industrial Finance Corporation of India, Post and Telegraphs and
the Damodar Valley Corporation. In 1996, there were 243 public sector
undertakings in India with a total investment of Rs. 1,78,629 crores. These 243
PSUs are having nearly 20.51 lakh regular employees with an average per capita
emoluments of Rs. 1,05,879 per annum. 112 In the First Five Year Plan the
investment was a little over Rs. 1,500 crores. During the Sixth Five Year Plan, a
monthly investment of Rs. 97,500 crores has been allocated to the public sector
out of the total plan outlay of Rs. 159,000 crores. 113
Table 3.2: Growth in Public and Private Sector enterprises (1951-85)
National Plan
Investment Rs. in crores & percentage
(in brackets)
Public Private
First Plan 1,5600
1951-56 - Actuals
Second Plan
1956-61 Actuals
1,800
(46.4) (53.6)
3,650
(54.1) (45.9)
3,100
Third Plan
1961-66
Three Annual Plans
(1966-69)
Fourth Plan
(1969-74)
Fifth Plan31,400
(1974-79)
Sixth Plan (Revised)
(1980-85)
6,100
4,300
(58.6) (41.3)
6,571
9,518
(40.8) (59.2)
13,655
9,980
(60.3) (39.7)
16,161
(66)
(34)
97,500
74,710
(57)
(43)
Despite the mushroom expansion of the public sector, its performance
has failed to achieve the desired results, which prompted the Government of India
to undertake reforms.114 Time and again, there were suggestions for its
restructuring of organisational set-up, financial restructuring, greater autonomy to
PSUs, disinvestment and privatisation etc. The demands of such structural
readjustment are being thought of in the light of global experience and the recently
announced new economic policy.115 In pursuance of the industrial policy, a
statement of public sector policy was announced by the Government of India on
July 24, 1991. The policy attempts at improving the performance of PSUs. The
statement highlighted the importance of receiving the public sector investment
with a view to focus the public sector on strategic, high-tech and essential
infrastructure.116 Whereas some reservation for the public sector is being retained,
there would be no bar for selective private sector. It was also urged that in order
to mobilise resources and encourage wider public participation, a part of the
Government's share holding in the public sector would be offered to mutual funds,
financial institutions, general public and workers, and that the Boards of public
sector companies could be made more professional and given greater autonomy..
An analysis of the Disinvestment Policy of the Government reveals that
it has been successful to a large extent. The Government has already set-up the
Disinvestment Commission to regulate the sale of Government share-holdings as
well as to restructure the PSUs. The Commission has suggested revamping of
PSUs before disinvestment.117 It does not, however, mean complete liquidation of
public sectors, which still has to contribute to the economic development of the
country. There is a need to bring in private culture of administration in the
PSUs.118 The best option under the present circumstances is to have a blend of
public and private enterprises. It is imperative for the private sector to have a
public purpose, there is no such thing as completely unregulated and free private
enterprise. Private enterprise functions within the conditions created largely by the
state. The concept of private enterprise, as, indeed, of private property, has
undergone a change, it cannot remain aloof from the larger economic interests of
the nation.119
Problems like health, drinking water, should engage the attention of both
public and private sectors. And if in an areas, the public sector fails, it should be
replaced by private sector. There is no need to politicse the issue as has been done
in the case of Balco.120
In a recent report, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India has
expressed concern over the colossal loss of Rs. 37,970 crores incurred by public
sector undertakings including Indian Airlines, Fertilizer Corporation, IISCO and
Hindustan Fertilizers, resulting in erosion of government equity. Other PSUs
whose accumulated losses were less than Rs. 1,000 crores but they too had eroded
government equity include Cement Corporation, Indian Airlines and IISCO. In
view of these losses, the Disinvestment Commission was enterusted with the task
of finding out whether the public sector has succeeeded in carrying out the public
purpose for which it was created, whether it is necessary to retain the PSU under
the present circumstances and if so whether it requires any restructuring. The need
for transparency was also felt.121
Disinvestment is an effective instrument for restructuring of the PSUs if
it is done properly taking into account the employment needs of the country. The
working of private sectors in India is not all that bad and, infact, they have helped
the growth of economy for instance, during 1960's, when Andhra Pradesh Paper
Mills was in doldrums, the Government of A.P. sold a part of its equity to the
Bangurs and also handed over the management to them. Later, it become a blue
chip company. Similar exercises were launched in other states. The state of U.P.
announced privatisation of three public sector units, U.P. Auto Tractors Limited,
U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd., and U.P. Tyres and tubes Ltd. Even the state
of Kerala had to go in for privatisation of its Tourism Development Corporation,
which owns over a dozen luxury hotels and transport fleets. 122 There is nothing
wrong in privatisation it successfully delivers the goods. But then everything
cannot be entrusted to them. The key areas should be included in the public sector
like electricity, railways etc. as private enterprises may not venture to undertake
these gigantic tasks. The need of the hour, therefore, is to strike a just balance
between private and public sector, without jeopardising the economy of the
country.123
References
1.
Sukhomoy Chakravarty, Development Planning (Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1987), p. 7.
2.
J.C. Aggrawal, Eight Five Year Plan (Shipra Publication Pvt. Ltd., Delhi,
1993), p. 19.
3.
Ibid., p. 2.
4.
The Times of India (New Delhi), June 5, 2000.
5.
K.N. Prasad, Indian Economy since Independence, A 50 year's profile, vol.
1 (National Publishing House, New Delhi, 1997), p. 1.
6.
K. Santhanam, Union-State Relation in India, (Bombay 1963), p. 47.
7.
H. Hanson, The Process of Planning : A Study of India's Five Year Plans
1950-1964 (London, 1966), p. 24.
8.
Pranab Mukherjee, Beyond Survival Emerging Dimension of Indian
Economy, (Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1984), p. 6.
9.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 490.
10.
Ibid., pp. 11-12.
11.
Ibid., p. 491.
12.
Ibid., p. 12.
13.
Yojna, New Delhi, vol. 42, 2001, p. 4.
14.
Ibid.
15.
J.C. Aggrawal, op.cit., p. 14.
16.
T.T. Krishnamachari, Planning in India, (Orient Longman, New Delhi,
1961), pp. 4-5.
17.
Ibid., p. 6.
18.
J.C. Aggrawal, op.cit., p. 19.
19.
Ibid., pp. 24-25.
20.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 504.
21.
Administrative Reform Commission, Report on Machinery for Planning,
Delhi, 1968, p. 4.
22.
A.N. Aggrawal, Economic Planning, (Vikas Publishing House Ltd., New
Delhi, 1981), pp. 449.
23.
Sukhomoy Chakravarty, op.cit., pp. 11-12.
24.
T.T. Krishnamachari, op.cit., p. 11.
25.
Pranab Mukherjee, op.cit., p. 52.
26.
T.T. Krishmachari, op.cit., p. 11.
27.
J.C. Aggrawal, op.cit., p. 14.
28.
T.T. Krishmachari, op.cit., p. 17.
29.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 13.
30.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 14.
31.
Ibid., p. 493.
32.
Ibid., pp. 13-14.
33.
Ibid., pp. 63-64.
34.
Ibid., p. 494.
35.
T.T. Krishmachari, Op.cit., p. 19.
36.
K.K. Dewett, Economic Theory, (Sultan Chand, New Delhi, 1984), p. 610.
37.
J.C. Aggrawal, op.cit., p.14.
38.
K.K. Dewett, op.cit., pp. 610-611.
39.
J.C. Aggrawal, op.cit., p. 15.
40.
Ibid., p. 22.
41.
Yojna, Vol. 45, New Delhi, 2001, p. 5.
42.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 497.
43.
Kurukshetra, New Delhi, 2002, p. 33.
44.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 65.
45.
Ibid., p. 505.
46.
Ibid., p. 131.
47.
Ibid., p. 132.
48.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 543.
49.
Ibid., p. 544.
50.
K.K. Dewett, op.cit., p. 610.
51.
J.C. Aggrawal, op.cit., p. 19.
52.
Yojna, Vol. 45, New Delhi, September, 2001, p. 5.
53.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 505.
54.
K.K. Dewett, op.cit., p. 610.
55.
J.C. aggrawal, op.cit., p. 15.
56.
Yojna, Vol. 45, New Delhi, September, 2001, p.5.
57.
Uma Kapila, Indian Economy since Independence, Vol. 1, (Synapse
Publishing House, Delhi, 1988), p. 445.
58.
Yojna, Vol. 44, New Delhi, July 2000, p. 10.
59.
Yojna, Vol. 45, New Delhi, February, 2001, p. 37.
60.
B.Sudhakar Rao, Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation in the context of
New Economic Policy, (Published by NIRD, Hyderabad, 1999), pp. 30-31.
61.
Robert and Lucas Gustav, The Indian Economy, (Oxford University Press,
1988), p. 102.
62.
Ibid.
63.
Ibid., p. 116.
64.
Uma Kapila, op.cit., p. 468.
65.
Ibid., p. 471.
66.
Employment News, Vol. XXVII, (New Delhi), p. 1.
67.
Ibid.
68.
Uma Kapila, op.cit., p. 466.
69.
Yojna, Vol. 45, New Delhi, February 2001, p. 41.
70.
The Hindustan Times, (New Delhi), August 13, 2002.
71.
J.C. Aggrawal, op.cit., p. 24.
72.
Ibid., p. 32.
73.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 518.
74.
Ibid., p. 195.
75.
Robert and Lucas Gustava, op.cit., p. 259.
76.
J.C. Aggrawal, op.cit., pp. 49-51.
77.
Government of India, Planning Commission, Eight Five Year Plan, 199297, p. 5.
78.
Yojna, Vol. 42, New Delhi, November 1998, p. 5.
79.
Ibid., p. 25.
80.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., pp. 267-268.
81.
Yojna, Vol. 45, New Delhi, September 2001, p. 6.
82.
Kurukshetra, Vol. 50, New Delhi, May 2002, p. 23.
83.
Ibid.
84.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 789.
85.
Ibid.
86.
Ibid., p. 790.
87.
The Times of India, (New Delhi), October 6, 2002.
88.
K.K. Dewett, op.cit., p. 593.
89.
India Planning Commission, Eight Five Year Plan, (New Delhi, 1992-97),
p. 16.
90.
Kurukshetra, Vol. 50, New Delhi, May 2000, pp. 2-3.
91.
K.K. Dewett, op.cit., pp. 597-98.
92.
Ibid., p. 595.
93.
Srivastava, Industrial Economy, (Vishwa Publishing House, Delhi, 1967),
pp. 307-308.
94.
Ibid., p. 265.
95.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 591.
96.
Ibid.
97.
Srivastava, op.cit., p. 267.
98.
Ibid., p. 268.
99.
Uma Kapila, op.cit., p. 62.
100.
Srivastava, op.cit., p. 269.
101.
Indian Planning Commission, Eight Five Year Plan, 1992-97, (New Delhi),
p.1 6.
102.
Maya and I.G. Patel, Essay on Economic Policy Methodology and Human
Resources, (Shahd Publication, 1996), pp. 64-66.
103.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 333.
104.
Business Standard, (New Delhi), March 17, 2001.
105.
C.R. Rangarajan, The Indian Economy : Essays on Money and Finance,
(UB & PD Publishers Distribution Ltd., New Delhi, 1998), pp. 260-261.
106.
Kurukshetra, New Delhi, April, 2002, p. 22.
107.
B. Sudhakar Rao, op.cit., p. 26.
108.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., p. 495.
109.
Ibid., p.497.
110.
A.N. Aggrawal, op.cit., pp. 650-651.
111.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., pp. 336-337.
112.
A.N. Aggrawal, op.cit., pp. 651-652.
113.
K.N. Prasad, op.cit., pp. 339-340.
114.
Annual Report of the Administrative Reform Commission on Public Sectors,
(New Delhi, Manager of Publication, 1967), p. 1.
115.
T.N. Chaturvedi, Indian Journal of Public Administration, IIPA, Vol.
XLIII, 1997-98, p. 518.
116.
Pranab Mukherjee, Op.cit., p. 116.
117.
Ibid., p. 117.
118.
T.N. Chaturvedi, Op.cit., p. 523, 524.
119.
The Times of India, (New Delhi), July 7, 1997.
120.
Theodore Gregory, India, On the eve of the Third Five Year Plan, (Thacker
Spink & Co Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, 1961), pp. 146-147.
121.
The Hindustan Times, (New Delhi, June 20, 2001).
122.
Yojna, New Delhi, December 1998, New Delhi, p. 8.
123.
N. Yasaswy, PSU, Stocks Picking the Winners, (New Delhi, 1993), pp. 5254.
Chapter - 3
Development Planning in India :
Retrospect and Prospect